Love this. The top programming books being SICP, Clean Code, and Crafting Interpreters feels very on-brand for HN.
Surprised by how much fiction shows up though. I'd assumed HN skewed heavily technical but seeing 1984, Dune, and Foundation in the top mentions suggests the community has broader reading habits than stereotypes suggest.
One bug: looks like "The Martian" by Andy Weir is getting grouped with "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury. Might want to add some disambiguation logic for common title collisions.
How are you doing the extraction? LLM-based NER or something more traditional like regex + entity matching?
I was recently reading through Ursula K. Le Guin's The Language of the Night: Essays on Fantasy and Science Fiction, and she has so many great quotes that are directly relevant to this situation.
Here's a shorter one:
> “The use of imaginative fiction is to deepen your understanding of your world, and your fellow men, and your own feelings, and your destiny.”
And a longer one:
> “We read books to find out who we are. What other people, real or imaginary, do and think and feel – or have done and thought and felt; or might do and think and feel – is an essential guide to our understanding of what we ourselves are and may become… A person who had never listened to nor read a tale or myth or parable or story, would remain ignorant of his own emotional and spiritual heights and depths, would not know quite fully what it is to be human. For the story – from Rumpelstiltskin to War and Peace – is one of the basic tools invented by the mind of man, for the purpose of gaining understanding. There have been great societies that did not use the wheel, but there have been no societies that did not tell stories.”
Engaging with fantasy and scifi helps us understand ourselves and the world around us. It helps find what truly moves and inspires us. It teaches us to dream of a different, better world.
What Le Guin is expressing is a beautiful idea, but it is a false beauty. It feels like truth because it aligns with how narrative engages the human mind, not because it accurately explains what stories are or why they exist. The sense that fiction reveals destiny, inner depth, or essential humanity is an illusion created by evolved cognitive machinery, not evidence of genuine insight.
From an evolutionary and cognitive standpoint, imaginative fiction is not a privileged tool for understanding who we are. It is a byproduct of more basic adaptations. The human brain evolved as a prediction engine optimized for survival in social groups. Its primary function is to anticipate outcomes, model other agents, and reduce uncertainty well enough to reproduce. Narrative arises because the brain naturally organizes experience into causal sequences involving agents, not because stories convey deeper truths about the self.
Fiction works by hijacking the same neural systems used for social reasoning, memory, and planning. When reading a story, the mind runs simulations of social situations. This feels like insight, but feeling insight is not the same as acquiring accurate models of reality. Fantasy and science fiction are not special forms of wisdom. They are simply inputs that exaggerate certain variables, making simulations emotionally vivid rather than epistemically reliable.
Le Guin’s claim that someone without stories would be ignorant of their emotional or spiritual depths is not supported by biology. Emotions are not learned through narrative. They are innate regulatory systems shaped by natural selection. Fear, attachment, anger, desire, and joy exist prior to language and independently of story exposure. Stories can name, frame, or intensify these states, but they do not create or deepen them in any fundamental sense.
The universality of storytelling also does not imply that it is an adaptive route to understanding. Evolution does not favor truth or self knowledge. It favors fitness. Many of the most persistent stories humans tell are systematically false. Myths, religious narratives, romantic ideals, and national legends endure because they exploit cognitive biases like agency detection, pattern completion, and emotional salience. Their spread demonstrates susceptibility, not insight.
Fantasy and science fiction do not teach us to imagine better worlds. They teach us to imagine compelling ones. A narrative can feel profound while being completely disconnected from reality. Inspiration and accuracy are orthogonal. The persuasive power of stories comes from their alignment with evolved psychological vulnerabilities, not from their correspondence with truth.
So the correct technical framing is this. Stories are not tools invented to gain understanding of humanity or destiny. They are artifacts produced by brains shaped for survival under uncertainty. They can be pleasurable, motivating, or culturally stabilizing. They can sometimes illuminate patterns of behavior. But their beauty should not be confused with truth. The feeling of depth they produce is an illusion, not a discovery.
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
That quote is a category error. It’s about moral judgment of people, not epistemic evaluation of claims. I’m not condemning Le Guin, her character, or anyone who enjoys fiction. I’m saying a specific explanatory claim about how stories relate to truth and human cognition is false.
If “judge not” applied here, then no scientific criticism is permissible at all. You couldn’t say a theory is wrong, a model is flawed, or a claim is unsupported, because the critic is also imperfect. That standard would immediately end every serious discussion on HN.
Quoting scripture in response to an evolutionary and cognitive argument isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a frame shift from “is this claim true” to “are you allowed to say it.” That avoids engaging the substance entirely.
If you think the argument is wrong, point to the error. If not, appealing to moral humility doesn’t rescue a claim from being false.
I wouldn’t think clean code is on-brand at all.
Maybe mentioning it for what not to do?
Just search it: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=clean+code
All (justifiably) against clean code methodology.
https://github.com/johnousterhout/aposd-vs-clean-code is a great find from that list. Thanks!